PLAYER57832 wrote:Asserting that homosexuals are insane IS very much bigotry. Transgenderism is still more controversial.

Oh, I see. Your pet issues matter. Everyone else: fuck them.

How can you even say that? Can you seriously not see the hypocrisy in your claim? It's like saying "racist against black people IS very much bigotry. Racism against asians is still more controversial".

In that post, you were the one not even bothering to consider that he might have justification (even if you disagree.... ). Your response was just to claim "evil", rather than to even bother to bring up data to refute the point. YOU acted the closed-minded bigot.

Aside from that, what I said IS true. You don't get to decide facts. Nor do you get to decide, alone what is and is not correct. That you are not willing to even DISCUSS or consider the possibility that you might be wrong doesn't translate into a right to bully those who disagree. In fact, unless you can come up with some firm and definite facts to back up your belief, your attitude of ignoring other opinions pretty much invalidates your right to have a say in this.

natty dread wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote: More evidence is needed before you can flat out claim anyone disagreeing is just a "bigot".

No it's not. There are people who are suffering because they feel their body parts do not match their experience of their gender. Are you saying that those people's experiences are invalid? That you know better than them? Why not just classify them as "insane" like was done for homosexuals a few decades ago. Problem solved sweeped under the carpet.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Also, context matters. Saying "I don' think this is a legitimate illness" is a legitimate argument when the question is should we be paying for this surgery.

No, it doesn't matter. The ends do not justify the means. Would you tell a depressed patient to just suck it up and grow a pair because their "illness is not legitimate" and then justify it with "I don't want to be paying for your treatment so it's ok for me to say that"?

READ THIS AGAIN. I am saying that not everyone gets the healthcare they need, and when push comes to shove, I am willing to deny extreme care to a convicted MURDERER (not just even "any criminal"..this guy killed other people) , rather than kids. For you to continue pretending that is not the real question means you are not paying attention. Either pay attention, listen to the REAL debate or get out. Right now, you are not debating, you are harassing anyone voicing an opinion disagreeing with yours ... and NOT providing data to back up your ideas.

Again, I did not even TACKLE the issue of whether transgender people should or should not get surgery, whether it is or is not a legitimate illness. I am dealing with whether tax payers have an obligation to provide care not absolutely necessary to sustain the prisoner's life. AND I am saying that triage, not "what I wish to happen" is the standard of who does and does not get care. If obtaining sex change operations were something freely available to the general public, you would have an argument. They are NOT. They are patently not, so to insist that a convicted murderer has the right to get this at taxpayer expense is just not reasonable.

AND, I made perfectly clear that MY position was quite consistant. There is no "free pass" here just becuase this person is transgender.

CONTEXT almost ALWAYS matters. It makes the difference between intelligent, thinking discussion and radical fanaticism. Right now, you are not even paying attention to what folks are saying. You just hear "not in favor of transgender surgery".. and leap to your conclusions. You are the one being bigoted here, not we.

natty dread wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote: Saying someone is mentally ill is, in THIS context, an opinion pertinent to the subject, it is not a slur.

No... just, no. Here's a fun thought experiment for you: Replace transgender people with homosexuals and see how you feel about that sentence.

Been there, done that and not just with homosexuality, but religious belief, gender issues AND race. In an open discussion about these issues, you have to allow people to express their opinions, as opinion, in a reasonable manner.. no matter how strongly you disagree. Else, you are not being educational or free.. you are being oppressive. Oppression of ideas is the greatest harm there is on EARTH.

Like I said, that you cannot distinguish between "hey, I don't think this is a valid illness"... and "I want all these people to jump in a hole and will take the shovel to cover them myself" shows YOUR bias and YOUR bigotry, not j's.

natty dread wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:. If he were saying "hey, these people just don't deserve to live", then maybe.

Oh. Just "maybe"? Ok, everyone, Player thinks it's maybe wrong to assert that transgender people don't deserve to live. Maybe they should be allowed to live.

Player, I think you should check your cisgender privilege.

I am a scientist, so I almost ALWAYS qualify things. There is almost always an exception to almost every rule.

And what the heck is "cisgender privilege" anyway.

natty dread wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:However, I can find posts where you yourself have called people "insane" (and yes, I am guilty as well) simply for disagreeing.

Maybe, but that still doesn't make it ok. The "but someone else also did it" is never a justification for anything.

Also, I've never classified an entire group of people as "insane" because of their sexuality, gender, ethnicity or other attributes. That makes all the difference.

And note that I made no such specifications. I said just "people who disagree with you".

If we cannot discuss even base values openly and even allow people to express disagreement, then contrary to your beliefs, it winds up with those ideas flourishing, not decreasing. Evil hides in darkness. By bringing the repugnant ideas out, by considering that people can have even repugnant ideas, based on THEIR experience (whites who know only what they have heard about blacks, for example), and claiming they are just stupid or evil for not automatically coming to the same conclusion you have leads to them feeling THEY are oppressed, that you are hiding from their ideas. It gives them MORE validity, not less.

Again, the proper response to disagreeing with the statement that (to paraphrase) was basically "I don't approve of this surgery because I don't think this is even a valid illness" is to bring up proof that it IS a valid illness, not to cry "discrimination".. BAN the guy! The way he phrased it was in disagreement, not abusive.. unless you are so hypersensitive that you cannot tolerate anyone even barely disagreeing with you on these issues. And, to be frank, that DOES seem to be you of late and it definitely is not a nice picture of you. Its a picture of even more intolerance than that you oppose.

natty dread wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Freedom means allowing a diversity of opinion, not that anyone who disagrees with anyone else is automatically a bigot. Open discussion means allowing people to express opinions, find facts to back them up. Rather than calling him a bigot, why not ask him to provide legitimate sources to back up his beliefs ... and provide some of your own.

So, now it's the "you have to be tolerant of peoples' intolerance" line? So if I'm calling out racists for calling black people n***ers, are you going to tell me that I should just let them voice their opinions?

It very much depends on the context. And yes, see the above. I not only say that, I live that.

I don't expect to debate people with whom I agree. I debate people who think differently from me... and sometimes I convince them, sometimes they convince me, sometimes we agree to disagree, and more often we each learn a tad, but still disagree or only shift our positions slightly.

An open mind is a GOOD thing. Only when people begin disputed real and verified facts does the story change.. but again, if you feel you have real and verified facts, then bring them up, don't just shout "BIGOT!"

natty dread wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:That said, for most of us whether transgenders should get surgery at all for that condition is actually irrelevant.

I think it's pretty relevant.

Really? I answered exactly the same for each and every condition you brought up. Its triage. That means some people don't get even things they might otherwise be determined to need. You really ought to look up that definition, because you have, to this point, pretty much ignored its meaning and my use of the term in this debate.

natty dread wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:At some point, when kids are being denied vaccinations and food in school so the state can pay for drugs for prisoners.. yes, we have to make limits.

So, first you put more people in prisons for more ridiculous sentences than any other civilized country. Then you're complaining that you have to pay for the healthcare of your prisoners.

OH please, I say no such thing. Are you now trying to claim that this convicted murder was falsely imprisoned. That is yet another debate. And still irrelevant. The fact is that people with NO convictions cannot get this surgery paid for them, so why should we pay for it for this convicted murderer?

natty dread wrote:I say, you made your bed, now lay in it.

Well, yeah, read above. I am not the hypocritical one here, sorry.

natty dread wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:The problem is not the basic idea that limits must exist. The issue is that they need to be made based on evidence, within an intelligent framework. In any case, the idea of taxpayers having to pay for an UNUSUAL surgary that most insurance companies won't pay for, that most law-abiding citizens, who may be equally in need cannot get.. is just wrong.

So again... why not campaign for the same treatment being available for non-prisoners instead of taking away from the ones that are in the worst possible position to defend themselves?

Read my earlier post. I addressed this.

Oh.. yeah, you cut it off, but here it is:

natty dread wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Cost, and need. This surgery is not covered by most insurance plans. That alone, says there is some justification for denying payment. Though I don't think the insurance standard should be "the standard," it does point to this being an issue reasonably worth consideration and not just automatic approval.

So, it appears you think insurance companies should be the ones deciding who gets what treatment. Funny - I keep thinking it should be up to the doctors to decide.

Funny, I keep talking about the real world that actually exists and you keep going back to the ideal. Again, look up the word "triage".

and for the record, I have railed against insurance company judgements countless times. Still, it is a place to BEGIN.

natty dread wrote:And "automatic approval" is a total red herring, that's not even what's in stake at here. Don't move the goalposts. "Automatic approval" is pretty much a non-issue when it comes to operations such as gender reassignment.

Not when it involved prisoners. Not in this case.

natty dread wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Necessity. To claim I am not for care for everyone is to deny most of what I have written on the subject and to go off on a tangent. None-the-less, whether we like it or not, we are not, tommorrow or anytime soon going to get universal healthcare. Even if we did, there is still going to be a limit to the number of doctors practicing in some specialties, some areas, etc.

Its triage. Triage is one of the nastiest words there is in health care, particularly emergency services, because it means you actually let some people die, BUT, it is a standard of protocols that assess how to best utilize limited resources (of ANY type) to do the most good for the most people. Triage says you turn your back on some people you might otherwise try to save, BUT you are then able to save many more as a result.

Stop trying to pretend the world is ideal and that everything is just an obscure intellectual excercise. You sound like a fanatic, not a sensible person when you ignore reality.

Aren't you being a bit overly dramatic here? It's not like you live in a 3rd-world country or anything - it's not like there's a shortage of malaria shots and you need to decide which 6/10 of the children in your family get vaccinations and assess which ones are least likely to die of starvation or scurvy anyway.

Childhood hunger was essentially eradicated in the late 70's, but with the election of Reagan, we began to see it emerge again. I can point to dozens of kids who's parents cannot afford to take them to the doctor (not the kids of the "deadbeats", mind you, but kids of working families).

So, again, try reality for a change.. not your idealized dreams.

natty dread wrote:Maybe if you stop wasting so much money into supporting insurance companies, bailing out banks, subsidizing oil & coal and playing world police, you could use that money for healthcare.

NO disagreement with ME there. How does that relate to what is actually happening?

Triage involves reality, not fictional wishes or ideals.

natty dread wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:That IS what happens, that is my point. Millions of people DO have to "go without", not just for psycotic medications, but for blood pressure, cancer, other medications.

Really? That's insane. Why wouldn't you give medications to those people? In my country, the state pays for the necessary medications of anyone who's too poor to afford to buy them, and even pays part of the cost for people who just have low income. We've yet to go bankrupt because of it. We've yet to have to deny surgery to transgender patients because of it, or even consider matters of "triage".

Actually, your state does consider triage, but they do so upfront and in an evidence-based manner. Its also, for the most part, done in the realm of medical science and ethics, not politics.

Also, EVERY civilized, modern nation absolutely uses the triage system in emergencies. They do so becuase it WORKS. It saves the most lives with what resources are available.

But, this discussion is not about your country, its about the US.

natty dread wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Oh please. I am not weighing in on that, except to say that it is more controversial than the idea of homosexuality being something inherent. I mean, from the liberal side, there is a debate as well --- among other issues, if we are aiming for a gender equal society as our goal, then why would anyone even need to change.

Seriously? That's got to be the stupidest thing I've heard this whole week. Just think about it for a while.

OH please, I grew up in CA. Good chance I have heard ALL sides of this debate far longer than you... for one thing, I do believe I am a few years older than you (thougth not sure about that).

Again, try listening to what people are actually saying instead of just jumping to assumptions.

natty dread wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote: I am not debating this, but for you to just make such blanket statements shows YOU are not even trying to understand other people's perspectives and, to be honest, have not really looked fully at all the literature.

Sorry, but I don't need to read Mein Kampf to know that racism is wrong.

Ah, yes, knew we could expect Nazis to be brought in. But see, my FAMILY was impacted by that.. and it is ALSO something I have written about in great deal.

You are not fighting racism or sexism here. You are simply promoting a liberalized version of oppression and unwillingness to consider other people's opinions. As I said before, YOU are the one being the bigot here. You are looking at titles, not what people are saying.

natty dread wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Tolerance goes many ways. Its not just about accepting people who are different.. its also about accepting people with whom you fundamentally disagree, and acknowledging that even if you dislike their ideas, they still have a fundamental right to those ideas and to express them.

And I have the right to call them out on their bullshit.

You did not do that. You called "mommy.. tell them they are bad!". "Calling them out" would involve actually providing refuting data. You did not do that.

PLAYER57832 wrote:In that post, you were the one not even bothering to consider that he might have justification (even if you disagree.... ). Your response was just to claim "evil", rather than to even bother to bring up data to refute the point. YOU acted the closed-minded bigot.

jimboston wrote:Have have made no transphobic assertions. I am not afraid of some freak whom claims to be a different sex than they are.

... right, I'm the bigot. (I fully expect to see this sentence in the out-of-context quotes thread).

jimboston wrote:Gender dysphoria is a real thing... in the sense that someone wants to be a different sex than they are. The person obviously has some serious mental issues.

Jimbo, why are you so afraid of anything different from yourself? Could it be that... you're a bigot?

jimboston wrote:Just because someone claims they are one sex doesn't make it so. Nature, God, chance, or whatever made you the sex that you are. Wanting to be the other sex doesn't make it so.

A, you're conflating "sex" and "gender". B, you have no evidence for your assertions, no matter how loudly you shout "NUH UH" it's not going to make your bigoted opinions any more valid.

Here's a quick 101 for you - sex refers to the physical attributes of a person's genitalia and other sexual characteristics. In layman's terms, it's whether you have a penis, vagina or something in between. Gender refers to your identity, whether you identify as a male or female or something in between. Transgender people are people whose sex and gender are mismatched.

So because you're so small-minded that you can't see anything past your narrow place in the world where "men are men and women are made of wood" or some shit, you claim that anything outside your narrow definition of "normal" is wrong. Who are you to make that judgement? Who made you the gender police?

So, since you seem to know everything about sex and gender, please tell me what makes someone a "man" or a "woman". Is it your genitalia? For example, a war veteran loses his penis while defending his country, in a macho, patriotic way, jumping on top of a hand grenade to save a whole platoon or some shit. Would you then say this patriotic war veteran whose mustache is in the shape of a bald eagle is not a man because he doesn't have a penis?

jimboston wrote:As an aside... I don't think that just because we can (kinda) change the sex of a person doesn't mean we should.

And how exactly does it harm you if some people want to change their sex? Are there transsexuals hiding under your bed, waiting to attack you with their ambiguous genitalia?

Face it, Jimbo, you're a bigot.

jimboston wrote:Aside number three... I also don't believe a significant number of "mental disorders" that the medical profession claims are real are indeed REAL. At least not in the sense that Cancer, broken bones, and heart attacks are real. I think ADD is somewhat real... but not to the extent that many claim, I don't think obesity is a "medical disorder" I think it's just a lack of self control, I also don't think alcoholism is a "medical" issue; again a lack of self control.

Ok, so now you're the reality police. How about you try to make your bigotry stop being real, it might make your life much happier.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Hey, natty's was being a bigot too! In a bad way!

I think that word doesn't mean what you think it means.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Aside from that, what I said IS true. You don't get to decide facts. Nor do you get to decide, alone what is and is not correct. That you are not willing to even DISCUSS or consider the possibility that you might be wrong doesn't translate into a right to bully those who disagree. In fact, unless you can come up with some firm and definite facts to back up your belief, your attitude of ignoring other opinions pretty much invalidates your right to have a say in this.

No, what you said is an ad populum fallacy.

PLAYER57832 wrote:READ THIS AGAIN. I am saying that not everyone gets the healthcare they need, and when push comes to shove, I am willing to deny extreme care to a convicted MURDERER (not just even "any criminal"..this guy killed other people) , rather than kids.

Oh, well now that you posted it in an enormous font I suddenly agree with everything you say.

So you're saying that healthcare is something that only "good people" should get, gotcha. If you do crimes, you're no longer worthy of being treated like a human being. Gotcha.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Again, I did not even TACKLE the issue of whether transgender people should or should not get surgery, whether it is or is not a legitimate illness. I am dealing with whether tax payers have an obligation to provide care not absolutely necessary to sustain the prisoner's life. AND I am saying that triage, not "what I wish to happen" is the standard of who does and does not get care. If obtaining sex change operations were something freely available to the general public, you would have an argument. They are NOT. They are patently not, so to insist that a convicted murderer has the right to get this at taxpayer expense is just not reasonable.

So, again: why not argue for sex change operations for everyone? Why do you need to go about it ass-backwards and demand that prisoners don't get them?

Sex change operations for everyone!

PLAYER57832 wrote:CONTEXT almost ALWAYS matters. It makes the difference between intelligent, thinking discussion and radical fanaticism. Right now, you are not even paying attention to what folks are saying. You just hear "not in favor of transgender surgery".. and leap to your conclusions. You are the one being bigoted here, not we.

Who's "we"?

natty dread wrote:It very much depends on the context. And yes, see the above. I not only say that, I live that.

I don't expect to debate people with whom I agree. I debate people who think differently from me... and sometimes I convince them, sometimes they convince me, sometimes we agree to disagree, and more often we each learn a tad, but still disagree or only shift our positions slightly.

An open mind is a GOOD thing. Only when people begin disputed real and verified facts does the story change.. but again, if you feel you have real and verified facts, then bring them up, don't just shout "BIGOT!"

No, I shout "bigot" when someone says something like this:

jimboston wrote:Gender dysphoria is a real thing... in the sense that someone wants to be a different sex than they are. The person obviously has some serious mental issues.

PLAYER57832 wrote:OH please, I say no such thing. Are you now trying to claim that this convicted murder was falsely imprisoned. That is yet another debate. And still irrelevant. The fact is that people with NO convictions cannot get this surgery paid for them, so why should we pay for it for this convicted murderer?

Have I asked you to pay for it? Make the prison-industrial complex pay for it. They're the ones profiting from the enromous incarceration rates in your country, they should be able to afford it.

PLAYER57832 wrote:I am a scientist, so I almost ALWAYS qualify things. There is almost always an exception to almost every rule.

And what the heck is "cisgender privilege" anyway.

Interesting, it appears that human rights have "exceptions". I never realized!

Also, google is your friend. I'm not your fucking dictionary.

PLAYER57832 wrote:And note that I made no such specifications. I said just "people who disagree with you".

If we cannot discuss even base values openly and even allow people to express disagreement, then contrary to your beliefs, it winds up with those ideas flourishing, not decreasing. Evil hides in darkness. By bringing the repugnant ideas out, by considering that people can have even repugnant ideas, based on THEIR experience (whites who know only what they have heard about blacks, for example), and claiming they are just stupid or evil for not automatically coming to the same conclusion you have leads to them feeling THEY are oppressed, that you are hiding from their ideas. It gives them MORE validity, not less.

I'm not censoring anyone here. I don't have any such powers, I can't keep anyone from posting anything or ban anyone from the forums. That doesn't mean I can't express my disagreement when someone spouts some hateful, bigoted bullshit and call them out on it. If someone says stupid shit, I have the right to ridicule them for it.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Again, the proper response to disagreeing with the statement that (to paraphrase) was basically "I don't approve of this surgery because I don't think this is even a valid illness" is to bring up proof that it IS a valid illness

Sorry, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. Jimbo claims that gender transgenderism is just "made up shit" that "insane people do because they're insane". It's not up to me to prove it false, it's up to him to prove his claims.

But if you insist - I don't even have to go further than Wikipedia:

Androphilic MtF transsexuals

Studies have consistently shown that specifically androphilic male-to-female transsexuals (sometimes called homosexual MtF transsexuals in studies) show a shift towards the female direction in brain anatomy. In 2009, a German team of radiologists led by Gizewski compared 12 androphilic transsexuals with 12 biological males and 12 biological females. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), they found that when shown erotica, the biological men responded in several brain regions that the biological women did not, and that the sample of androphilic transsexuals was shifted towards the female direction in brain responses.[78]

Rametti and colleagues used diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) to compare 18 androphilic male-to-female transsexuals with 19 gynephilic males and 19 typical (heterosexual) females. The androphilic transsexuals differed from both control groups in multiple brain areas, including the superior longitudinal fasciculus, the right anterior cingulum, the right forceps minor, and the right corticospinal tract. The study authors concluded that androphilic transsexuals are halfway between the patterns exhibited by male and female controls.[79]Gynephilic MtF transsexuals

Conversely, gynephilic male-to-female transsexuals also show differences in the brain from non-transsexual males, but in a unique pattern different from being shifted in a female direction. Researchers of the Karolinska Institute of Stockholm used MRI to compare 24 gynephilic male-to-female transsexuals with 24 non-transsexual male and 24 non-transsexual female controls. None of the study participants were on hormone treatment. The researchers found sex-typical differentiation between the MtF transsexuals and non-transsexual males, and the non-transsexual females; but the gynephilic transsexuals "displayed also singular features and differed from both control groups by having reduced thalamus and putamen volumes and elevated GM volumes in the right insular and inferior frontal cortex and an area covering the right angular gyrus."

These researchers concluded that "Contrary to the primary hypothesis, no sex-atypical features with signs of 'feminization' were detected in the transsexual group....The present study does not support the dogma that [male-to-female transsexuals] have atypical sex dimorphism in the brain but confirms the previously reported sex differences. The observed differences between MtF-TR and controls raise the question as to whether gender dysphoria may be associated with changes in multiple structures and involve a network (rather than a single nodal area)."[80]

In Sweden, non-androphilic transsexual women were tested when they were smelling odorous steroids. The results showed that the transsexual women demonstrated "a pattern of activation away from the biological sex, occupying an intermediate position with predominantly female-like features." [81]

Anne Lawrence, a sexologist, physician, and self-identified autogynephilic transsexual, has hypothesized that the desire by persons with autogynephilia, including some cross dressers and some transsexuals, to alter their body can be compared with apotemnophilia (alternately body integrity identity disorder if framed as an identity issue rather than a fetish).[82] Explanations of the desire to transition based on libido, such as this, have been criticized by some transsexuals who argue that they are unscientific[83] or transphobic.[84]

And so on. Need more?

PLAYER57832 wrote:Actually, your state does consider triage, but they do so upfront and in an evidence-based manner. Its also, for the most part, done in the realm of medical science and ethics, not politics.

Evidence please.

natty dread wrote:Also, EVERY civilized, modern nation absolutely uses the triage system in emergencies.

Yes, in emergencies. Stop moving the goal posts.

natty dread wrote:You are not fighting racism or sexism here. You are simply promoting a liberalized version of oppression and unwillingness to consider other people's opinions. As I said before, YOU are the one being the bigot here. You are looking at titles, not what people are saying.

No, YOU are the bigot here.

natty dread wrote:Ah, yes, knew we could expect Nazis to be brought in. But see, my FAMILY was impacted by that.. and it is ALSO something I have written about in great deal.

Lootifer wrote:Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

Intolerance: lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.

Pretty open and shut case to be honest. By opposing gay marriage you are being a bigot; sure its only a minor offence as far as the wider area of bigotry is concerned (I for one am glad you arent going out every night and beating the shit out of suspected fags NS), but it is bigotry nonetheless.

Yes this definition pretty makes everyone on CC OT forums a bigot (except for me, Im pretty much an angel) but it is what it is.

Let's run with this. As you've implied, according to those definitions then anyone opposed to fascism or Nazism is also a bigot. They'd be a bigot for good reasons in my opinion, but they'd be a bigot nonetheless.

So, then we'd have argue about who is a "good bigot" and who is a "bad bigot."

Henceforth, all accusations of bigotry should include "good" or "bad" before the word "bigotry/bigot."

BigBallinStalin wrote:I don't deny that such an operation may be necessary or is a disease, but I balk at the taxpaying argument.

So you're saying, everyone should pay for their own medical care then. So poor people who can't afford medical care should just do us a favour and die, right?

Why do such close-minded, ignorant liberals/social democrats/people on the left constantly make such a stupid strawman argument?

So, you were being open-minded, open to revising your stance, and tolerant of other people's opinions when you used that strawman argument, amirite?And you in no way exemplify any economic bias at all, amirite? (e.g. sweatshop debate and apparently here with your obstinate refusal to admit to acting like a bigot in a bad way).Here's another example of you being a bigot in a bad way (here)

Or instead of being a bigot in a bad way....

After reading my statement, your mind closed, you got emotional, you let loose something ignorant, and then you continue to deny being a bigot in a bad way.(Let's include the examples of other clear cases of you exemplifying bad bigotry).

The above somehow lends no evidence to my position that you are a bigot in a bad way?

Just make sure that whenever you call someone else a bigot (in a bad way), you're not a good standard of tolerance, open-mindedness, and all that exemplifies not being a bigot (or rather, being a bigot in a good way). At times, you've got some serious faults which continued ignorance and posts of pictures can't cover up.

Ouch! Dang, natty's own words paint a pretty bad picture of his thinking.

I like this little bit of wisdom-

natty wrote:Make the prison-industrial complex pay for it.

LMAO. I wonder who he thinks pays for the prisons, the guards, the food, medical attention and all the other things associated with the prison system.

Let's see, looking into it, the Massachusetts DOC has a budget of $516,374,451*. That's a cost, natty, BTW.

The prison industries and farm service program brought in $2,600,000. (The budget for this department is $2,082, 694. Ignoring the rest of the costs of the entire DOC, they "made" $517,306. About 1/1000th of the total costs of the DOC. Great business plan there! They got pllleeennntttyyyy of money to pay for whatever, right?)

The DOC received $3,000,000 from the Federal Government for housing Federal prisoners. (1/117 the total costs of the DOC)

So, let's add this up. Mass spent $516,374,451 total. The get the meager profits from their industry projects and the federal payments which adds up to $5,600,000. The total COST of the DOC? $510,774,451. That's cost, natty.

So tell me, where is all this "profit" that you seem to think exists from the prison industrial complex?

As always, when it comes down to paying for your beliefs you are quick to say-

"It costs how much? Screw that! Make someone else pay for it!"

Good job there, buddy. Way to stand up for your beliefs. You know, I bet you couldn't pay a dime anyway, to see your most precious beliefs come to fruition. You're dead broke most likely. That probably makes you feel bad, which explains why your quick to be "The boy who cried wolf bigot!" to make you feel better about yourself. Hey, whatever lets you get to sleep at night, more power to you. Just don't try to make everyone else be as broke (economically) as you, if you don't mind.

Ouch! Dang, natty's own words paint a pretty bad picture of his thinking.

I like this little bit of wisdom-

natty wrote:Make the prison-industrial complex pay for it.

LMAO. I wonder who he thinks pays for the prisons, the guards, the food, medical attention and all the other things associated with the prison system.

Let's see, looking into it, the Massachusetts DOC has a budget of $516,374,451*. That's a cost, natty, BTW.

The prison industries and farm service program brought in $2,600,000. (The budget for this department is $2,082, 694. Ignoring the rest of the costs of the entire DOC, they "made" $517,306. About 1/1000th of the total costs of the DOC. Great business plan there! They got pllleeennntttyyyy of money to pay for whatever, right?)

The DOC received $3,000,000 from the Federal Government for housing Federal prisoners. (1/117 the total costs of the DOC)

So, let's add this up. Mass spent $516,374,451 total. The get the meager profits from their industry projects and the federal payments which adds up to $5,600,000. The total COST of the DOC? $510,774,451. That's cost, natty.

So tell me, where is all this "profit" that you seem to think exists from the prison industrial complex?

As always, when it comes down to paying for your beliefs you are quick to say-

"It costs how much? Screw that! Make someone else pay for it!"

Good job there, buddy. Way to stand up for your beliefs. You know, I bet you couldn't pay a dime anyway, to see your most precious beliefs come to fruition. You're dead broke most likely. That probably makes you feel bad, which explains why your quick to be "The boy who cried wolf bigot!" to make you feel better about yourself. Hey, whatever lets you get to sleep at night, more power to you. Just don't try to make everyone else be as broke (economically) as you, if you don't mind.

Ouch! Dang, natty's own words paint a pretty bad picture of his thinking.

I like this little bit of wisdom-

natty wrote:Make the prison-industrial complex pay for it.

LMAO. I wonder who he thinks pays for the prisons, the guards, the food, medical attention and all the other things associated with the prison system.

Let's see, looking into it, the Massachusetts DOC has a budget of $516,374,451*. That's a cost, natty, BTW.

The prison industries and farm service program brought in $2,600,000. (The budget for this department is $2,082, 694. Ignoring the rest of the costs of the entire DOC, they "made" $517,306. About 1/1000th of the total costs of the DOC. Great business plan there! They got pllleeennntttyyyy of money to pay for whatever, right?)

The DOC received $3,000,000 from the Federal Government for housing Federal prisoners. (1/117 the total costs of the DOC)

So, let's add this up. Mass spent $516,374,451 total. The get the meager profits from their industry projects and the federal payments which adds up to $5,600,000. The total COST of the DOC? $510,774,451. That's cost, natty.

So tell me, where is all this "profit" that you seem to think exists from the prison industrial complex?

As always, when it comes down to paying for your beliefs you are quick to say-

"It costs how much? Screw that! Make someone else pay for it!"

Good job there, buddy. Way to stand up for your beliefs. You know, I bet you couldn't pay a dime anyway, to see your most precious beliefs come to fruition. You're dead broke most likely. That probably makes you feel bad, which explains why your quick to be "The boy who cried wolf bigot!" to make you feel better about yourself. Hey, whatever lets you get to sleep at night, more power to you. Just don't try to make everyone else be as broke (economically) as you, if you don't mind.

LOL, if you say so. But you are pretty bad at having a constructive conversation.

The OP and others don't feel as though they should have to be forced to pay for this inmates procedure, and this is a legitimate concern.Natty, instead of addressing the concern merely calls them bigots and then says it doesn't cost the OP anything because the prison will pay for it.

However, the OP does live in Mass. and is being forced to pay for it. Which he is against because his state is already in the hole as it is. To the tune of $1.3 billion just for this current fiscal year.

The question comes down to, "Who pays for it". It's a simple question I asked. There are people like Natty who think it's a legitimate use of funds, even though the state of Mass. lacks the funds to pay (they are $1.3 Billion in the hole as it is after all).Therefore, the simple, fair solution is that instead of forcing people who don't wish to pay for it, just have the people who do want to pay for it pony up the money from their own personal funds.

The inmate desires an operation but lacks the funds. Someone must pay for it, which makes it an act of Charity. It doesn't matter if it's the State or private individuals, it's still charity. The problem is, the State is incapable of charity because it derives it's funds through taxation. Charity is expressly a voluntary transaction. What the State does is the exact opposite of Charity.

Natty should be the one who donates to the charitable cause because he is the one who supposedly believes in the cause. Thus, he should pay for it and not try and force others to pay in his place.

jimboston wrote:Just because someone claims they are one sex doesn't make it so. Nature, God, chance, or whatever made you the sex that you are. Wanting to be the other sex doesn't make it so.

A, you're conflating "sex" and "gender". B, you have no evidence for your assertions, no matter how loudly you shout "NUH UH" it's not going to make your bigoted opinions any more valid.

Here's a quick 101 for you - sex refers to the physical attributes of a person's genitalia and other sexual characteristics. In layman's terms, it's whether you have a penis, vagina or something in between. Gender refers to your identity, whether you identify as a male or female or something in between. Transgender people are people whose sex and gender are mismatched.

So because you're so small-minded that you can't see anything past your narrow place in the world where "men are men and women are made of wood" or some shit, you claim that anything outside your narrow definition of "normal" is wrong. Who are you to make that judgement? Who made you the gender police?

Definition "A" clearly 100% agrees with how I have been using the term. Definition "B" does not 100% agree with my usage... but it doesn't agree with your "re-definition" of the term. Perhaps you should learn the language before you start lecturing me on the proper usage of specific words. I checked a few other dictionaries as well... and "sex" was always the first / primary definition.

Gender may be used to identify traits of an item... it is NEVER used to mean "identity".

Transgendered people are not people whose sex and gender are mismatched. They are people who are born one sex/gender... but identify themselves with the other/opposite sex/gender. This is a mental disorder. What someone wants to do to themselves to "fix" this issue is their own business. It's not something I should EVER pay for. EVER.

(Note I want to specifically exclude Hermaphrodites... as that is a physical issue from birth, not a mental issue.)

natty dread wrote:So, since you seem to know everything about sex and gender, please tell me what makes someone a "man" or a "woman". Is it your genitalia? For example, a war veteran loses his penis while defending his country, in a macho, patriotic way, jumping on top of a hand grenade to save a whole platoon or some shit. Would you then say this patriotic war veteran whose mustache is in the shape of a bald eagle is not a man because he doesn't have a penis?

THIS IS A STOOPID FUCKIN' QUESTION. I won't give it any dignity by answering it.

jimboston wrote:As an aside... I don't think that just because we can (kinda) change the sex of a person doesn't mean we should.

And how exactly does it harm you if some people want to change their sex? Are there transsexuals hiding under your bed, waiting to attack you with their ambiguous genitalia?

Face it, Jimbo, you're a bigot.

It doesn't... and (as I have stated) I don't really care at all about someone fucking with their own body. I personally don't think it should be done, and I generally wouldn't want to associate with a person so fucked up that they would do that to themselves. I'm not saying it should be illegal... or the Gov't (Big Brother) should stop them... I don't think that. I just can't understand how or why someone would do that... nor do I want to bother to attempt to understand it.

Now... not only do I think Gov't shouldn't stop the person. I also don't think Gov't should be in the business of helping a person do that to themselves.... and I CERTAINLY DON'T THINK I SHOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.

natty dread wrote:

jimboston wrote:Aside number three... I also don't believe a significant number of "mental disorders" that the medical profession claims are real are indeed REAL. At least not in the sense that Cancer, broken bones, and heart attacks are real. I think ADD is somewhat real... but not to the extent that many claim, I don't think obesity is a "medical disorder" I think it's just a lack of self control, I also don't think alcoholism is a "medical" issue; again a lack of self control.

Ok, so now you're the reality police. How about you try to make your bigotry stop being real, it might make your life much happier.

Your retort here makes no sense. If you have something to say... say it. Clearly you don't.

Symmetry wrote:If you want the legal punishment of a prisoner to include reserving medical treatment, argue away. As is, and as proven by court, it's cruel and unusual.

Try again with another strawman Patches. You get so angry knocking them down.

It's very simple.

I don't think that NOT paying for sex transformation surgery is "cruel and unusual".

I think having the Taxpayer footing the bill is "cruel and unusual" for the Taxpayer... a person (group of people) who have NOT committed any crime.

Apparently we now live in the Twilight Zone... a place where the "rights" of murderers supersede the Rights of the citizen.

It is "usual" to get a broken bone mended, and to get antibiotics for infections.

It is not "usual" to get your penis cut off, and get a surgeon to put some facsimile of a vagina in its place. This is not "usual". Since it's not "usual" it is therefore not "cruel and unusual" to NOT get this done. Follow?

Symmetry wrote:If you want the legal punishment of a prisoner to include reserving medical treatment, argue away. As is, and as proven by court, it's cruel and unusual.

Try again with another strawman Patches. You get so angry knocking them down.

It's very simple.

I don't think that NOT paying for sex transformation surgery is "cruel and unusual".

I think having the Taxpayer footing the bill is "cruel and unusual" for the Taxpayer... a person (group of people) who have NOT committed any crime.

Apparently we now live in the Twilight Zone... a place where the "rights" of murderers supersede the Rights of the citizen.

It is "usual" to get a broken bone mended, and to get antibiotics for infections.

It is not "usual" to get your penis cut off, and get a surgeon to put some facsimile of a vagina in its place. This is not "usual". Since it's not "usual" it is therefore not "cruel and unusual" to NOT get this done. Follow?

Well, I doubt you'll have much sway on the law with that. Denying surgery recommended by doctors seems a bit cruel.

If you want to see a law whereby murderers are stripped of citizenship, and/or denied healthcare, go ahead and propose it.

Symmetry wrote:If you want the legal punishment of a prisoner to include reserving medical treatment, argue away. As is, and as proven by court, it's cruel and unusual.

Try again with another strawman Patches. You get so angry knocking them down.

It's very simple.

I don't think that NOT paying for sex transformation surgery is "cruel and unusual".

I think having the Taxpayer footing the bill is "cruel and unusual" for the Taxpayer... a person (group of people) who have NOT committed any crime.

Apparently we now live in the Twilight Zone... a place where the "rights" of murderers supersede the Rights of the citizen.

It is "usual" to get a broken bone mended, and to get antibiotics for infections.

It is not "usual" to get your penis cut off, and get a surgeon to put some facsimile of a vagina in its place. This is not "usual". Since it's not "usual" it is therefore not "cruel and unusual" to NOT get this done. Follow?

Well, I doubt you'll have much sway on the law with that. Denying surgery recommended by doctors seems a bit cruel.

If you want to see a law whereby murderers are stripped of citizenship, and/or denied healthcare, go ahead and propose it.

It seems a little crazy.

We'll see. I don't think it's completely unreasonable to try to get this activist judge removed. I will be supporting it.

Symmetry wrote:If you want the legal punishment of a prisoner to include reserving medical treatment, argue away. As is, and as proven by court, it's cruel and unusual.

Try again with another strawman Patches. You get so angry knocking them down.

It's very simple.

I don't think that NOT paying for sex transformation surgery is "cruel and unusual".

I think having the Taxpayer footing the bill is "cruel and unusual" for the Taxpayer... a person (group of people) who have NOT committed any crime.

Apparently we now live in the Twilight Zone... a place where the "rights" of murderers supersede the Rights of the citizen.

It is "usual" to get a broken bone mended, and to get antibiotics for infections.

It is not "usual" to get your penis cut off, and get a surgeon to put some facsimile of a vagina in its place. This is not "usual". Since it's not "usual" it is therefore not "cruel and unusual" to NOT get this done. Follow?

Well, I doubt you'll have much sway on the law with that. Denying surgery recommended by doctors seems a bit cruel.

If you want to see a law whereby murderers are stripped of citizenship, and/or denied healthcare, go ahead and propose it.

It seems a little crazy.

We'll see. I don't think it's completely unreasonable to try to get this activist judge removed. I will be supporting it.

Activist how? He ruled on a basic point of law.

If you want the law changed, argue for the law you want. The one where punishment for murder includes being stripped of citizenship, and denied medical treatment.

Symmetry wrote:If you want the legal punishment of a prisoner to include reserving medical treatment, argue away. As is, and as proven by court, it's cruel and unusual.

Yes, but I am others are arguing that this crosses the line too far in the OTHER direction. That providing this surgery will negatively impact other people, including other transgenders who committed no crime, children and other prisoners, even matters.

Woodruff wrote:It seems to me that while someone is incarcerated, their basic necessities should be taken care of, which of course includes medical care. But this isn't. I mean...diagnosed with cancer, take care of the cancer treatment, of course. So yeah...bad decision, in my view.

Well, I have a hard time agreeing with this, even. We're in a country where many are outraged at a fairly recent policy change that tries to ensure that more Americans have some healthcare because many are too poor, many jobs no longer provide healthcare in full or even in part.

But prisoners get treatment those on the outside cannot? Nope, have a hard time with it. Let the prisoners' families pay for anything that's not communicable, or let the prisoner do some labor to earn money and give him a telephone call or two to find a medical insurer on his own.

At any rate, back to topic, perhaps it's something that came up as part of some prison-required therapy and the guy got a "prescription" to have it done to help with whatever mental disorder he's having?

Last year sometime there was a guy who "held up" a bank, giving the teller a note and requiring her to give him a dollar or some piddly amount, in order to be arrested so an illness would get treatment. I guess in Massechussetts, those who want sex change operations will try holding up banks so a judge can order their operation at prison (taxpayer) cost.

transgenderism/transsexuality is not a disease, a mental illness, or otherwise. Suggesting so is a form of bigotry equally on par with that of saying homosexuality is a disease/mental illness or that being a woman means you're there only to bear children.

Everyone keep those comments out of the discussion. I understand that the idea of transgenderism isn't something many know about, but forms of it's bigotry will be acted on like any other kind. The real argument is not whether or not you agree with it, but whether taxes should be paying for it, and why or why not (as many of you have addressed). Thanks,

A minor clarification. Gender identity disorder (also known as "transsexualism") is, however, recognised as a medical condition that can require treatment if the person in question wishes it. One such form of treatment is gender reassignment surgery. Now don't even try to be smartasses and claim "the mods say it's not a disease so there's nothing to treat in the first place".That would be trolling at this point.

saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.

MeDeFe wrote:A minor clarification. Gender identity disorder (also known as "transsexualism") is, however, recognised as a medical condition that can require treatment if the person in question wishes it. One such form of treatment is gender reassignment surgery. Now don't even try to be smartasses and claim "the mods say it's not a disease so there's nothing to treat in the first place".That would be trolling at this point.

If it's a disease it's a mental one anyway so I don't see any reason to treat it with surgery.Therapy and pills would be the proper solution to that "disease".I mean, it seems to me that lobotomy is not used anymore to treat mental diseases...

From: Karl_R_KroenenTo: maxfaraday

I have noted this post and if it continues, there will be consequences for you.

maxfaraday wrote:If it's a disease it's a mental one anyway so I don't see any reason to treat it with surgery.Therapy and pills would be the proper solution to that "disease".I mean, it seems to me that lobotomy is not used anymore to treat mental diseases...

So you propose brainwashing people and/or keeping them on psychoactive drugs for the rest of their lives. Correct?

The other option is a surgery at the behest of the patient and monitoring/maintaining hormonal levels afterwards.

Despite the physical changes, the second option seems like the simpler one to me.

If natty's quote from Wikipedia is any guide at all, it also appears that gender identity disorder is at least partly caused by variant structures in the brain. That means we're not talking about chemical or hormonal imbalances that can be treated by swallowing pills and normalising the levels, but about cellular structures. We're not nearly advanced enough to physically rewire a person's brain right now, and I for one don't think we should do it even if we could. As you said, we don't use lobotomies any more.

Surgery may also well be cheaper in the long run, if you wish to bring economic arguments into this. Psychoactive drugs cost a lot, and we may well be talking about 50 to 70 years here during which the person has to take them or start feeling like they're living in the wrong body again.

saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.

maxfaraday wrote:If it's a disease it's a mental one anyway so I don't see any reason to treat it with surgery.Therapy and pills would be the proper solution to that "disease".I mean, it seems to me that lobotomy is not used anymore to treat mental diseases...

You are wrong, but that gets way off topic and I don't care for another round here, today. Just do the research.

Mental illness is treated by a combination of therapies that can include surgery in some specific, more extreme cases. Even electroshock treatment is being brought back, though in a much more controlled, specific and monitored fashion than when it got the bad name.